General Discussion? What's that all about?

This subforum is for general discussion of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. For a glossary of terms frequently used in such discussions, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary. For a glossary of musical terms, see here. Other useful links:

1) Proof that Linda Mack and SlimVirgin are the same person.2) Proof that Linda Mack violated journalist ethics in relation to the Lockerbie bombing incident and Pierre Salinger3) Proof that SlimVirgin edited the Lockerbie bombing article and controlled it4) Proof that SlimVirgin's early edits to the Lockerbie bombing article were oversighted

Now, all up that doesn't prove that SlimVirgin is a secret service agent, but it does nonetheless prove that something is very much amiss.

If she was an agent, or collaborated with the CIA in the Locherbie investigation, and in the disinformation campaign of that film on Pan Am (as that book suggests) has anyone considered that she might have gone under some kind of identity protection program?

Sarah McEwan could have been in Alberta, bored and missing her exciting life where she could blame the DEA for a bombing and ruin lives, and help put a Libyan in prison, and charge Libya for a bombing that other countries were behind, editing Wikipedia - making note of everything she used to know and do, never realizing that someone would link it to her old life.

That's also possible. As possible as her being a spy now. Whether or not she was a spy then.

I have a theory that she married a Jewish guy, or otherwise took the name Sarah as a sort of reference to her affinity for Jewish things.

She would have outed herself, of course. Maybe she's in the process of re-changing her name right now, as a result of this.

**extra note: I think we need to stop saying MI5/MI6. If she was really doing what you say she was doing, it was CIA. I don't see the Brits getting so into manipulating such information around as this - especially the campaign against the Fracovich film, in the book by Susan and David Cohen on the Pan Am Case. She didn't have to be American to be CIA, they hire non-Americans all the time.

The Susan and David Cohen book is actually the most indicative of a spy. They liked Linda, and trusted her, and they are reporting that Francovich was calling her a spy (page 233, Pan Am 103, Susan and David Cohen), when Linda was tryin to keep his movie from being played. They describe their later surprise at how innocuous the movie was, and they describe how Linda "took the lead" in stopping it. They also describe the link with Larouche and this film.

With Slimvirgin's constant tapping down of Larouche, it actually all does make her look like she's still a spy, honestly, and I'm quite a skeptic.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Wed 1st August 2007, 7:27pm

Remember to webcitation.org EVERYTHING now. That includes Wikipedia diffs and pages.

Yes, we learned that rule when the Lockerbie bombing edits were deleted and then oversighted. Mind you, I still think that Selina kept copies of the Google caches. But we have to wait until Selina comes back from holidays!!! Selina!!!! If I yell loudly enough will she hear me and come back?

I think it's time to write a formal letter to the Board of Trustees of Wikimedia Foundation and request an investigation into the oversightings. Then if they respond, or fail to respond, there's enough to take it to the press, along with some of Jimbo's comments on the issue to date. I think the letter should come from Wikipedia Review.

We need some clarification on the issue of anonymity for high officials of Wikipedia, as well as powerful admins (and all admins in general, for that matter). How do they justify this? If they claim it's a protection against cyberstalking, then can they give concrete examples of why such protection is needed, and why the tradeoff for more protection, leading to more secret conflict-of-interest articles, is justified?

I also think Somey should get rid of all those "name redacted" that are currently replacing Linda's name. He should also lift the bot prohibition on the Editors forum as soon as the redactions are gone. Or, if he's squeamish about that, then he should transfer everything to a special Slim page with no redactions, and make it available to the engines.

I also think we need some admins to start using their real names, or they will look foolish doing all of this.

I've been repeating myself over the last week like crazy. Virtually everything I've posted over the last week is old news. But it seems to be new to a lot of readers on this board, because they cannot find the old stuff.

Oh, to hell with it. I'm talking in circles. I think I'll do all this from Wikipedia-Watch in September. Journalists are asleep in August, and besides, I want to give Jimbo a chance to make some more zany comments.

I think it's time to write a formal letter to the Board of Trustees of Wikimedia Foundation and request an investigation into the oversightings.

Complete waste of time. But if you want to, go for it.

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Wed 1st August 2007, 1:42pm)

Then if they respond, or fail to respond, there's enough to take it to the press, along with some of Jimbo's comments on the issue to date. I think the letter should come from Wikipedia Review.

I think that bringing up the Cohen book, and the DEA agent book, is very important. It is too easy to bash Pierre Salinger.

You'd have to get someone from the mainstream press to pick it up - what about the Huffington Post? Why not blog there Daniel? That's a huge cross section of media and politics and it is very open. And has developed a great reputation based on internet-alone publication.

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Wed 1st August 2007, 1:42pm)

I've been repeating myself over the last week like crazy. Virtually everything I've posted over the last week is old news. But it seems to be new to a lot of readers on this board, because they cannot find the old stuff.

Weren't you also saying things about Google, and then that was recognized later?

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Wed 1st August 2007, 1:42pm)

I want to give Jimbo a chance to make some more zany comments.

Because that's something new? Jimbo says a lot of dumb things. Unfortunately, he's been interviewed in Newsweek this week, and that does him more weight. People still think that Wikia is going to produce a credible product - mostly because he's claiming he's going to unseat Google, which is pretty much the wackiest thing he's ever claimed.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Wed 1st August 2007, 8:03pm

Certainly if interviewed by the press, anyone who is interviewed should give their real name. I don't think there's anything to be afraid of. This project (Wikipedia Review) is something to be proud of, and your role in this is something to be proud of. You don't have to say your Wikipedia username of course, if you have one that hasn't been banned yet, but that's a different issue. That's to protect against unfair Wikipedia abuse. I just feel reluctant for some reason to use my real name on the internet directly. I used to do it all of the time. But after the Julie incident, I am somewhat reluctant now. I don't want to lose my job and be unemployable for 18 months because someone says that I'm a paedophile after getting my real life details and attaching it to a bunch of totally irrelevant links. And you just never know when there's a whacko around the corner. I'll give my real name to press, but in the general forum I am reluctant to.

Certainly if interviewed by the press, anyone who is interviewed should give their real name. I don't think there's anything to be afraid of.

You know, if she really is still with the CIA, it isn't without risk. Wikipedia can't harm you - they can only ban you or badmouth you - but the CIA can do a lot to mess up your life. If they want to bother.

Not sure that they would. If she is in the CIA, she's got to be getting a lot of flack for having outted herself so carelessly. And if she is in the CIA, its like the 5th time that someone prominent has figured her out. It would be hard to imagine that her team, or boss, or handlers, would be thrilled at her having outed herself, and would be keen to attack her outers. Killing someone or discrediting them before the internet could silence them. But with the web, words are permanent record, so it is less easy to close things off.

Back in the skeptics corner - If she's not in the CIA, she behaves suspiciously and aggressively enough that many people have accused her of it. She still might not be an agent, you know.

Another clue to her 'not' being an agent is that her website slimvirgin.com was bought by herself. If she was an agent, I think the agency would pay for such a thing. Or she'd use a different login for her undercover work than her personal page, and personal yahoo email.

The Susan and David Cohen book is actually the most indicative of a spy. They liked Linda, and trusted her, and they are reporting that Francovich was calling her a spy (page 233, Pan Am 103, Susan and David Cohen), when Linda was tryin to keep his movie from being played. They describe their later surprise at how innocuous the movie was, and they describe how Linda "took the lead" in stopping it. They also describe the link with Larouche and this film.

With Slimvirgin's constant tapping down of Larouche, it actually all does make her look like she's still a spy, honestly, and I'm quite a skeptic.

SV is not a spy and has never been a spy. She's a bored, intelligent but outspoken person with particular views who has become addicted to a website. Her involvement in certain articles comes from a personal connection in her past. Can we establish this now?

We know who she is thanks to Daniel Brandt's expose some time ago. We've known it for a long time, as it happens. All this additional, wilder speculation is fuelling the WP crowd and is off the mark.

Also keep in mind that though SV has been causing havoc on WP for several years, its no worse than that. And there is also a certain discomfort in using even our most sworn enemy as a scapegoat to undermine a whole structure. People like SV, and Essjay are themselves addicts and victims of Der Jimbo's grand folly. They need rehabilitation more than they deserve humiliation.

People like SV, and Essjay are themselves addicts and victims of Der Jimbo's grand folly. They need rehabilitation more than they deserve humiliation.

Yes, but WP needs to be taken down and this is as good a way to do it as anything else...You still seem to think that this project is still viable: what more proof do you need that it's not only not viable, it's become a menace.

She didn't have to do anything here. She choose to inject her own POV into these articles. As Kelly Martin says, she made her bed and now she's going to have to lay in it...

I think it's time to write a formal letter to the Board of Trustees of Wikimedia Foundation and request an investigation into the oversightings. Then if they respond, or fail to respond, there's enough to take it to the press, along with some of Jimbo's comments on the issue to date. I think the letter should come from Wikipedia Review.

If you take it to press, be sure to make an account to ask on-wiki too so once your account gets. banned you can add that as something mentionable.

QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Wed 1st August 2007, 3:03pm)

Yes, but WP needs to be taken down and this is as good a way to do it as anything else...You still seem to think that this project is still viable: what more proof do you need that it's not only not viable, it's become a menace.

When I want to find information on a wiki, I find wikipedia has too much bias spread in it. For instance if I want to look up something on star trek, I visit the memory alpha site and not wikipedia as memory alpha would have less people trying to control it with lies.